Shopmonkey MCP Server

create_vehicle

Add a new vehicle to Shopmonkey, optionally linking it to a customer. Specify details like year, make, model, VIN, and mileage to create a vehicle record.

Instructions

Add a new vehicle to Shopmonkey, optionally linked to a customer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_vehicle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vin`	No	Vehicle Identification Number
`make`	No	Vehicle make (e.g., Toyota, Ford)
`year`	No	Vehicle model year
`color`	No	Vehicle color
`model`	No	Vehicle model (e.g., Camry, F-150)
`mileage`	No	Current mileage
`customerId`	No	Customer ID to associate with the vehicle
`licensePlate`	No	License plate number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Add' indicating mutation, but fails to disclose side effects (what happens on duplicate VIN?), return values, idempotency, or required fields despite schema marking all as optional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single 11-word sentence. Front-loaded with action verb. Zero redundancy. Every word earns its place by conveying core operation, target system, and key optional relationship.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, but benefits from 100% param schema coverage. Adequate for basic invocation but gaps remain: no mention of return payload (created object ID?), validation behavior, or conflict resolution.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds 'optionally linked' which reinforces the optional nature of customerId parameter, but otherwise doesn't expand on parameter semantics, formats, or validation rules beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'Add' with specific resource 'vehicle' and system context 'Shopmonkey'. Mentions optional customer linking which adds scope detail. Lacks explicit differentiation from sibling 'update_vehicle' (create vs modify).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage context via 'optionally linked to a customer', suggesting when to include customerId. However, lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'create customer first') or 'when-not-to-use' guidance versus update_vehicle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server